Wednesday, March 15, 2017

APPEAL TO RELEASE ABATHEMBI KING FROM PRISON OCTOBER 28/10/2018




Liberation UNION of Azania
2 Nkqubela Street
Guguletu
7750

23 October 2018




The Honourable President &  Presidency
Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa

Honourable Deputy President
Mr. David Mabuza

Honourable Speaker of Parliament
Baleka Mbethe

Honourable Deputy Speaker of Parliament
Mr. Lechesa Tsenoli
Contralesa President
Chief Phatekile Holomisa

P.O Box 499
Pretoria
Thembuland Chairperson SADC Council of Traditional Leaders

Parliament
Private Bag x 9087
Cape Town
8000





Dear President Cyril Ramaphosa

APPEALING TO PARDON,EXPUNGE AND RELEASE KING DALINDYEBO FROM PRISON.

The purpose of this letter is to honestly appeal to the spiritual consciousness of leading national government, the African National Congress to earnestly reflect on our heritage and historical background without ideological prejudice.

In solidarity to the supremacy of the Congress of Traditional Leader and traditional customary laws and rules, we wish to register and further extend our concerned grievances on matter King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo incassaration.   United Nations adopted the Indigenous People's Rights Resolution on the 13th September 2007.

United Nation General Assembly was therefore guided by principled purpose of United Nation's Human Rights Charter to fulfil the obligations assed by the State in good faith in accordance with the UN Charter. UN Charter affirmed that all people contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and culture  and this constitute common history and heritage of humanity.

The adoption of South African Constitution in 1996 violated the indigenous Kingdom Rights to land which existed in South Africa's immemorial times. How I wish I could bring Stonehenge to South Africa government of national unity(Rainbow Nation) to show there was a time when Britain, England had savage culture. How I wish to bring back Stonehenge and show African National Congress (ANC) that King Tshaka, King Moshoeshoe, King Cetywayo
King Sendza Ngakhona. King Hintsa and King Sabata Jonguhlanga Dalindyebo fought against Nationalist Party's ruthless apartheid government.

LEST WE FORGET OUR OWN IDENTITY!

We are a descendent of the Koi Kingdom, Xhosa Kingdom, Zulu Kingdom, Venda Kingdom, Sotho Kingdom,
Tswana King, Shangaan Kingdom, Swazi Kingdom, Ndebele Kingdom, Pedi Kingdom

The documented history of Traditional Leaders of South Africa clearly indicates that Houses and Traditional existed prior 1483 before the European settlers set their feet on the shores of South Africa. There were house and ten Kingdom ruled by Kings of Xhosa Kingdom, Koi Kingdom, Zulu Kingdom, Venda Kingdom, Sotho Kingdom, Tswane Kingdom, Shanganan Kingdom, Swazi Kingdom, Ndebele Kingdom and Pedi Kingdom and they were all ruled by these respective Kings under the monarchical system, we can also confirm that various Kingdoms were sovereign governed.
Therefore the indigenous people courts determined all forms of disputes between and amongst members f the traditional village in line  with indigenous laws and custom. Ten Houses of Traditional Kingdoms has continued to exist with determination of Traditional community disputes based on reconciliation principles

In 1989 the Front-Line States under Organization of African Unity mandate, sit down in Zimbabwe Harare, made a statement of principle, set guidelines for negotiation process. This mandate of the OAU Ad-Hoc Committee on South Africa acted as a preventative to maintain and seized of the issues of a political resolution of the South Africa Question.

The undertaking of the Harare Declaration Statement of 1986, sub paragraph of paragraph 16 stated;

16.5               All shall enjoy universally recognised human rights, freedoms and civil liberties, protected under an                         entrenched Bill.
16.6               South Africa shall have a new legal system which shall guarantee equality of all before the law.
16.7               South Africa shall have an independent and non-racial judiciary.
16.8               There shall be created an economic order which shall promote and advance the well being of all                              South Africa.
16.9               A democratic South Africa shall respect the rights, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all                                       countries and pursue a policy of peace, friendship and mutually beneficial co-operation with all                               people.

We believe agreements on the certain principle statements did not constitute the foundation for an international acceptable solution which aimed at enabling South Africa to be a rightful and equal partner among the African and world community of nations. How can we move forward while the past is pulling us back.  There is not medicine to cure prejudice  and racism.  Government is compelled to use and exhaust all avenues which are instrumental to promote equal justice and peace. The cultivation of human rights culture should remain focused on restorative justice earnestly.

There is so much ambiguity in our Judicial Court System, King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo treatment and sentence was based on impunity due to the fact that this Constitution maintain Section 47 of the Act, there is so much prejudice, racism and biasness in South African Justice Systems. Our government has ambiguity in the interpretation of the Constitution. South African Judicial System is not transparently fair when applying and passing the law.


When the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (CONTRALESA) objected to the certification of this Constitution in 1996 on the bases that the text did not recognize Traditional Courts, both ANC and South African Constitutional Court held that Traditional Courts were contemplated in the "other court" namely;
Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, High Court of South Africa and any other established court or recognized in terms of Act of Parliament..


The question still remain does Africa National Congress (ANC) government deserve credit for making strides in restoring Traditional land to its rightful owners, the indigenous people who were dispossessed from their land during the apartheid era? How can government land restitution program provide remedy's while our Constitution maintains racist laws like the Native Land Act of 1913. In its literal sense  Section 25 of the Constitution has made all government intervention unconstitutional. When Congress of Traditional Leaders objected the certification of 1996 Constitution, government of national unity under African National Congress (ANC) established a Law Commission that was aimed at establishing and investigating and give report on Traditional Court in South Africa.

The Commission completed its investigation and published its findings or report in January2002, the recommendation of the Commission was the proposal of new legislation process of recognizing Traditional Courts in South Africa.
Six years later (2008) Traditional Courts Bill which was introduced by ANC in Parliament was never passed, a new version of the Traditional Bill was published in the Government Gazette No 40487 dated 9 December 2016,
this new version contained and maintained the same provisions that led the Traditional Leaders  to object the  certification of  1996 Constitutional

South African Historical Background

From the very 1st day the European settlers set the foot on the shores of Azania in 1483, our people became their host while they were our visitors.  Pre-Colonial South Africa was ruled by Kings under the monarchical system.  The various Kingdoms were sovereign States.  They were institution in which the position f head of State was filled by the King, not as a result of elections, but via inheritance or dynastic succession.  This was the Indigenous People's system of governance in all spheres, indigenous people had no problems until European settlers invaded our land.

The experience and history teachings is this; people and government have never learned anything from history, or act on principle deduced from it. It would be too dangerous if history is ignored. There are well documented historiography of how the European Invaders at the instruction of their mother land unprovoked, invaded, annexed, occupied, seized, appropriated, expropriated and dispossessed Azania's Indigenous Kingdoms of the lands, their systems, their religion, their economies, their industries, their live stocks and wealth and forcefully imposed to the Indigenous Kingdom and people their cultures, system, language, education and this perpetuated the European Settlers deceitful deeds, they established a country illegally and illegitimately, enacted laws and system which were and still continues to violate the rights of the Indigenous People.

The mandate of true liberation movements was stand and fight side by side with Traditional Leaders, the causal of the unprovoked Invasion of the Indigenous Land and Property by European Settlers and the resistant to the unprovoked invasion by the Indigenous Kingdoms and their subjects. 

That resistant by the Kings was gruesomely dealt with by the  Colonial Countries by ways of torture, murder, incarceration, deceit, theft and legal establishments, Both Royal British and Royal Dutch were in the centre of forcing our  Kings into exile and in LAND GRABBING the Traditional People's Land.

The Concise Description of an Issue to be Addressed

With can proudly say that is a prophecy in reverse and that colonialism, slave trade and missionaries are the bastion of Western civilization and culture in Africa.  We are correct to the extent that colonialism serves as a vehicle of implantation of cultural imperialism in Africa.  Colonialism, perceived in the context, is an imposition of foreign rule over indigenous traditional political setting and foreign dominance and subjugation of Africa people in all sphere of their social, political, cultural, economic and religious civilizations.

Colonial and imperial settlers sparked immediate response from the Africans. We are still against all those who collaborated with European Settlers and formed new foreign rules in Africa. We believed that ethnic tribal was in Africa were caused by the collaborators of Colonialism when Traditional Leader rejected European Settlers foreign laws.
Older interpretations of these reactions characterized them as misplaced actions of disillusioned rulers acting under the influence of superstition and witchcraft.  In contrast to this.  more recent views see the earl opposition to imperialism as a well-ordered process with specific significance for the eventual development of nationalism and the colonization process which set in after the Second World Ward.

After the completion of partition, rebellion and uprisings continued, at this state protesting against the introduction of colonial rule.  Resistance was localized and limited to the countryside, usually sparked by the collection of taxes, expropriation of land, enforced growing of certain crops, the actions of colonial officials, the introduction of Western education, or the renunciation of indigenous culture, which affected daily life in the tribal context.  In these instances, religious cults and the spirit of media usually played important roles



The deceptive predatory skills of the European Settlers were, and continue to be instrumental in their perpetual control of the minds and souls of the unsuspecting, naive, poisoned, brainwashed and somewhat mentally paralyzed indigenous communities.. The organic and original issues pertinent to invasion, annexation, appropriation, expropriation and finally the unprovoked destruction of the Indigenous symposium was never dealt with viz;

1.             Rights and self determination of Indigenous People.
2.             Uncompromising & unconditional Rights of Indigenous Lands and Resources
3.             Rights to free participation and Informed Consent.
4.             Rights to subsistence development.
5.             Right to 100% own Traditional Lands and control all mineral Resources.
6.             Rights to Intellectual Property Rights to claim back resources taken from the land.
7.             Rights to preserve history, heritage and culture through Indigenous Peoples Intellectual Property.
8.             Rights for the recognition of Indigenous Institutions with structural customs.

Our concerned is that the indigenous people of Azania have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter  alia , their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests, there s an urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive for their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.

Expropriation

This is many of the worse injustices in South African history that has resulted from the expropriation of Indigenous People Private land by Royal British and Royal Dutch. The history has shown how the land rights of the Indigenous African people were/was progressively eroded, but today Indigenous Peoples Land Rights is scarcely exist at all. History has explicitly discussed the extended to which  Koi-son, Indian and whites have also suffered loss of their land, homes, and businesses as a result of expropriations by apartheid government.

To ensure that these injustices never recure, Liberation UNION of Azania propose for a new unambiguous Anti-Expropriation Clause. This will prevent expropriation for other than "genuine" purpose, and in such cases proper compensation based on market value, sentimental value, and subsequent losses would have to be made.

If government at any level wanted land or other assets for any other reason, such as the provision of schools, housing,  parks, or wherever, it would have to by it by voluntary agreement just as anyone else would have to.

Liberation UNION of Azania urges for complete protecting and protecting of the rights of Indigenous People across South Africa, ignoring the indigenous people rights and tradition, African National Congress government will be perpetuating the illegal British establishment Colony new approach. Therefore Liberation UNION of Azania believe that the South Africa is;

1.             To date South Africa is an illegal British& Dutch establishment.
2.             The European invasion and annexation was not reverse to its origin. The assimilation of democracy through   CODESA was a deception ploy to perpetuate reconciliation propaganda , theft and plunder of the               indigenous land fronting the ANC and its allies through lied democracy.
3.             Freedom of the indigenous people  should take the formation of indigenous structural system without            foreign influences.
4.             We strongly believe that Colonized Azania should be led by the Kings and Chiefs and jointly execute                executive Traditional powers in restoring the lost dignity of Azania's Kingdom.
5.             For Azania to be morally and socially stable, the Kingdom executive powers should be rested to the House of                Lords, where all laws of the land will be enacted.(like Queen Elizabeth).
6.             All nine Provinces should be relegated to administration.
7.             All foreign nationals who lived in Azania be granted equal rights as indigenous people.
8.             Liberation UNION of Azania believe in order to balance economy and bring sanity and comfort to our             people, a system based on indigenous traditional culture and customs led by our traditional leaders and          council should be reinstituted.

It is for these reasons that we call for the immediate release of the late King Sabata Jonguhlanga Dalindyebo's son, King Buyelekha Dalindyebo and restore his Kingship.

I wish to hear from in the future.


Sincerely yours

Muzuvukile Sompeta Xolo
President Of Liberation UNION of Azania (LUA)
021-4252370
Fax-0086526408
0788557322
liberationunionofazania@gmail.com



Saturday, March 11, 2017

The AUSC President is Announcing the Weekly Day Off For AUSC Offices All.

The AUSC President is Announcing the Weekly Day Off For AUSC Offices All.



As you are my Special friends all ,and all Appointed AUSC Leaders, today on March 11th, 2017 is the Sabbath Day.
In your works, remember to respect Almighty God who created You and Your Family, He lives, for sure He lives because He created Your father and your mother and hence you also got to live on this world. 
Please respect his Bible, or Corona or Any Book of God you worship, make sure the Almighty Father in Heaven lives, in You, make your efforts to recognize who is the real God to worship in this World. Amen. 🙏 
Kigali-Rwanda-East African Region.



*Reference No1: Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?

Jesus was accused of breaking theSabbath. Did He? Should you?

It’s been asserted that Jesus broke the Sabbath, and hence we are free to disregard it as well. But did Jesus break the Sabbath? The basis for the idea that Jesus broke the Sabbath is the accusations made by Jesus’ enemies among the Pharisees and scribes. Because Jesus performed miracles of healing on the Sabbath, the Pharisees accused him of breaking the Sabbath (Matthew 12:10; Mark 3:2, John 9:14-16). John records a healing that Jesus performed at one of the festivals in Jerusalem. Because of this the Jews sought to kill him. John records that in a confrontation following the healing Jesus said to his
enemies, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Then it says, “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:17-18). Hence the argument is made that Jesus worked on the Sabbath and broke the Sabbath, leaving Christians free to do so.
The Scriptures also record an incident when the disciples of Jesus plucked heads of grain from a field as they were walking and ate them on the Sabbath. And some of the Pharisees charged them with the question, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?” (Luke 6:2). This Scripture is also used by some to assert that Jesus and his disciples did not honor the Sabbath.
In order to understand what is at issue in these accounts it is helpful to understand something of the rabbinical tradition which lay behind the charges laid against Jesus and his disciples for their conduct on the Sabbath. The pharisaic tradition, by the time of Jesus, had developed (one might say degenerated) into an array of petty rules having to do with the minutiae of the law. It focused on physical works which had little to do with the spirit and intent of the law, and which in fact often violated the law (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-13; John 7:19; Galatians 6:13).
The scribes among the Pharisees created and transmitted the pharisaic rabbinical traditions. The body of authoritative traditional law which they formulated, called the Halakah (which is the subject of and preserved in the Mishnah), is extra-biblical. Although authoritative for Jews who followed pharisaic tradition, much of the Halakah was not supported by Scripture, but was intended as a “hedge” about the law, to prevent any possibility of its being broken. Yet, in doing this very thing they were breaking the law, for God had said, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2; also Deuteronomy 12:32). In adding the weight of their tradition to the law of God they bound “heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matthew 23:3).
They placed the authority of their traditions above that of Scripture itself, thus blaspheming the word of God. Joachim Jeremias is a late German scholar who authored an encyclopedic study of economic and social conditions during the New Testament period. He points out that the oral tradition was “above the Torah,” and that the esoteric writings containing scribal teachings were regarded as inspired and surpassing the canonical books “in value and sanctity” (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1.3). Alfred Edersheim also points out that traditional law was of “even greater obligation than Scripture itself” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1.8; also see his footnote).
What was the nature of these traditional ordinances? Alfred Edersheim, born a Jew but later converted to Protestant Christianity, was a 19th century scholar who wrote extensively on Jewish doctrines and practices before and during the time of Christ. He summarizes the character of the traditional law as follows: “The Halakah indicated with the most minute and painful punctiliousness every legal ordinance as to outward observance…. But beyond this it left the inner man, the spring of actions, untouched.”
……..
“Israel had made void the Law by its traditions. Under a load of outward ordinances and observances its spirit had been crushed” (1.8). The rules of Sabbath observance are a good illustration of the absurdities and contradictions of the traditional law. Again summarizing, Edersheim writes concerning the rules of Sabbath observance, “On no other subject is Rabbinic teaching more painfully minute and more manifestly incongruous to its professed object.” He charges the scribes with “terribly exaggerated views on the Sabbath” and “endless burdensome rules with which they encumbered everything connected with its sanctity” (3.35). “In not less than twenty-four chapters [of the Mishna], matters are seriously discussed [regarding Sabbath observance] as of vital religious importance, which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain” (6.16). Yet one would look in vain in these rules for a spiritually meaningful understanding of the Sabbath: “…in all these wearisome details there is not a single trace of anything spiritual — not a word even to suggest higher thoughts on God’s holy day and its observance” (6.16).
I’ll list a few details to give you the flavor of what he’s talking about. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah provides a more detailed discussion of traditional Sabbath law in an appendix. The law included detailed regulations regarding what constituted carrying a “burden”: Of wine, of milk, of honey, of water, of other fluids. Of dry materials: Pieces of paper, horses hairs, wax, a piece of broken earthenware, animal food. Generally a burden was anything heavy as a dried fig, or a quantity sufficient to be of any practical use (a scrap of paper, for example, of enough size to be converted into a note or a wrapper). It prescribed what might or might not be saved if one’s house caught on fire. Only clothes absolutely necessary, for example, could be saved. But one could put on a dress, save it, go back and put on another, and so on. One could not ask a Gentile to extinguish the flames. But if he did so voluntarily, he should not be hindered. One could eat food on the Sabbath lawfully only if it had been specifically prepared for the Sabbath on a weekday. If a laying hen laid an egg on the Sabbath, it could not be eaten. But if the hen had been kept for fattening and not laying, the egg could be eaten, being considered a part of the hen that had fallen off! The study of the Mishna on the Sabbath was more important than that of the Bible. The Hagiographa (the Old Testament “Writings”) were not to be read on the Sabbath except in the evening. And on and on it goes in like fashion.
Of special interest to us are the laws regarding harvesting and healing on the Sabbath. Even the slightest activity involving picking grain, removing the husks, rubbing the heads, cleaning or bruising the ears, or throwing them up in the hand was forbidden. Yet if a man wanted to move a sheaf on his field, he had only to lay a spoon on it, then, in order to remove the spoon he might also remove the sheaf on which it lay! It should be noted that most of the Jews paid little attention to these petty rules, though the Pharisees (whose numbers were relatively few compared to the general population) did.
When the Pharisees took Jesus’ disciples to task for plucking heads of grain from a ripe field and eating them on the Sabbath, Jesus (as he often did) turned the contradictions in their own traditional laws against them. He pointed out how David and his followers, famished and fleeing for their lives, had, when no other food was available, eaten the shewbread, which ordinarily only the priests were allowed to eat (Matthew 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4; 1 Samuel 21:1-6). Jewish tradition vindicated his conduct, on the premise that danger to life superseded Sabbath law, and all related laws (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 3.35). Jesus simply said, “Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:6-8).
Of course the Sabbath command is in a separate category from the sacrificial ordinances, yet if the work of feeding and watering animals could be done on the Sabbath (permitted by Jewish law), to relieve unnecessary suffering, logic would apply the same principle to humans, the disciples, who were partaking of the only food readily available at the time. None of this controversy would have occurred to begin with, however, except for the Pharisees terribly exaggerated views concerning what was or was not permitted on the Sabbath. The priests in the temple work on the Sabbath and are guiltless (Matthew 12:5). This the Scribes also knew, but apparently did not clearly understand why. Somehow they missed the point that the Sabbath was instituted not only to rest from one’s own physical labors, but also to devote the time to God by doing his works and service. As Edersheim observes, the disciples actions were “clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of the Rabbinic Law” (3.35). Jesus said that the Pharisees — not understanding the law — had “condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7). Clearly the disciples were not guilty of breaking the Sabbath as charged, and were falsely accused.
Healing, inasmuch as it might entail work, pharisaic law permitted on the Sabbath only if necessary to save life or to prevent death. Thus a plaster might be applied to a wound if the object was to prevent it from getting worse, but not to heal it. Wadding to promote healing could not be put in the ear on the Sabbath, but could be worn if placed in the ear before the Sabbath. Yet, contrarily, a splinter might be removed from the eye, or a thorn from the body, though no immediate danger to life was perceived. Furthermore, an animal might be removed from a pit, or taken to water on the Sabbath. As we shall see, when Jesus was accused of violating the law by healing on the Sabbath, he used the Pharisees own contradictory rules to convict them of hypocrisy.
First let’s deal with Jesus’ statement that he had been working. The Sabbath law is, in part: “Six
days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…” (Exodus 20:9-10). Notice that the work forbidden by the Sabbath law is “your work,” the work of the people. The law does not forbid works of service towards God. Indeed, the very reason we are commanded to cease from our own works on the Sabbath is so we may devote the time to the work of honoring and serving God. Notice the words of Isaiah: “If you turn your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the LORD honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words…” (Isaiah 58:13). Here it is clear that it is our own works, the course of our everyday business, that we are to avoid on the Sabbath. On the other hand, we are to honor God on the Sabbath. Giving honor to God often entails work. As Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words points out, often “‘giving honor’ refers to doing something” (p. 115, Old Testament Section). For example, one way in which children honor their parents is by obeying them (Ephesians 6:1).
A careful reading of Scripture reveals that we are to cease and rest from common or profane work on the Sabbath so that the time may be devoted to God’s holy purpose. But implicit in the Sabbath command is work necessary to fulfill the spiritual aim and meaning of the Sabbath. On the first Sabbath, God ceased and rested from his work of physical creation, but he did the work of creating the Sabbath, blessing and sanctifying it (Genesis 2:2-3; Mark 2:27). The weekly Sabbaths and the annual Sabbaths were days proclaimed to be “holy convocations,” or commanded assemblies for the purpose of gathering to hear God’s word taught and for congregational worship (Leviticus 23:2, 4). Here is implied the work necessary to travel to the place of assembly and of listening and learning and participating in the worship service. Those commissioned to teach did the work of reading and explaining God’s word. And on such occasions the people customarily ate and drank, sharing and rejoicing in the holy day and in the truth of God’s word (Nehemiah 8:1-12). And other work implicit in the command was done, too. Even on the most solemn day of the year, the Day of Atonement, the priests did the work of slaying animals and offering sacrifices before God according to the requirements of the law (Leviticus 16).
The work of honoring and worshiping God is not forbidden on the Sabbath. Indeed it is the object of the Sabbath. That’s why the priests could work on the Sabbath and not be guilty. Their work was a necessary part of the congregational Sabbath duty of honoring and serving God. It was, in that sense, not their work but God’s work that was being done. Early in his ministry Jesus, on a Sabbath day, announced in summary form the work he had been sent to perform. His work was preaching the gospel, healing [both physical and spiritual implied], and liberating from oppression (Luke 4:18-19). The works Jesus did were not his works, but God’s works, that he had been sent to perform (John 4:34; 9:4; 17:4). Healing was an integral part of Christ’s ministry. In perfect harmony with what the Sabbath rest pictures and with the gospel message, it typified the physical and spiritual healing that Christ will perform during the Millennium when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth (see Isaiah 35:5-6, 57:16-20; Ezekiel 47:8-10).
When Jesus healed on the Sabbath he was not breaking the Sabbath, but fulfilling it, because when one is afflicted, oppressed and bound by disease or infirmity, he is not at rest. As many Scriptures show, God delights in redeeming and restoring the afflicted, and giving them the rest exemplified by truly keeping the Sabbath according to God’s will. “…he [God] heard [or hears] the cry of the afflicted. When he giveth quietness [or rest], who then can condemn?” (Job 34:28-29, ASV). But the Jewish leaders, bound by their false tradition, did condemn the Messiah for giving the souls that he healed rest from their afflictions. Instead, they should have offered praise: Speaking of ones afflicted and at death’s door, a psalmist wrote, “Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, and He saved them out of their distresses. He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men! Let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare His works with rejoicing” (Psalm 107:19-22).
Notice how the Millennial rest — typified by the Sabbath — and healing are placed together by the prophet Jeremiah. God speaks through the prophet of the yet future deliverance and restoration of Israel, “For behold, I will save you from afar, and your seed from the land of their captivity. Jacob shall return and have rest and be quiet, and no one shall make him afraid” (Jeremiah 30:10). The prophet continues, “‘For I will restore health to you and heal you of your wounds,’ says the LORD…” (Jeremiah 30:17). This prophecy for “the latter days” (Jeremiah 30:24) continues, “‘At the same time,’ says the LORD, ‘I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.’ Thus says the LORD: ‘The people who survived the sword found grace in the wilderness — Israel, when I went to give him rest” (Jeremiah 31:1-2). The prophet goes on to describe the even greater yet future blessings of Israel when God gathers them “from the ends of the earth, among them the blind and the lame…” (Jeremiah 31:8). It’s in this same setting that Isaiah wrote, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing” (Isaiah 35:5-6).
Jesus answered those who accused him of breaking the Sabbath, “If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:23-24).
How was it breaking the Sabbath to heal on the Sabbath? Even the scribes recognized that certain kinds of work were necessary on the Sabbath. That of the priesthood for example. I’ve mentioned how work necessary to alleviate or prevent suffering, such as taking animals to water, was permissible according to Jewish law. Work necessary to save life, or even killing in time of war, was permitted by Jewish law. Healing, except as necessary to save life, however, was forbidden on the Sabbath by their law. Yet, there were exceptions to this prohibition as well, as discussed earlier. The laws the Jews added to God’s commandments were their laws, not God’s. Violating the traditional laws of the Jews was not sin. Sin is the transgression of God’s law (Romans 3:20; 7:7; 1 John 3:4). Jesus asked the scribes and Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Luke 14:3). He, Jesus Christ, God, the one who delivered the Sabbath law to Israel on Mount Sinai, pointed out the hypocrisy and error in the Jewish traditional law which permitted necessary work to relieve the suffering of animals on the Sabbath, and even to kill in time of war, but forbade the relief of human suffering due to disease or debilitating infirmity (Matthew 12:11-13; Mark 3:4; Luke 13:15; 14:5).
When John wrote that Jesus “broke the Sabbath” (John 5:18), he was writing in the context of how the Jewish leaders viewed Jesus’ action of healing on the Sabbath (compare John 9:14-16). Those who say Jesus did actually break the Sabbath are agreeing with Christ’s enemies, his accusers, that Jesus’ miraculous works of healing were a breach of the Sabbath law. They are agreeing with Jesus’ accusers that he was a Sabbath breaker. To be consistent, they must also agree with the Pharisees when they said of Christ, “We know that this man is a sinner” (John 9:24). The blind man who had been healed knew better than that, saying, “we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him” (John 9:31).
When Jesus healed on the Sabbath he was not violating the law of God. In the context of this controversy of healing on the Sabbath, Jesus said, “…it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12). He only broke the Sabbath in the sense of violating a man made rule regarding its observance. Had he actually broken the Sabbath he would have been sinning. But the Scripture says he “committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22). Had he sinned he could not be our savior. But he, being undefiled and separate from sinners, offered himself without spot and without blemish to God for our redemption (Hebrews 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19). No, Jesus didn’t break the Sabbath. He spent the Sabbaths preaching, teaching, healing, honoring God, doing the good work of his ministry, the work of God.
The record of Scripture is that Jesus kept the Sabbath faithfully, as it was intended to be kept from the beginning. In doing so he set us an example. “He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6).
Copyright © 2014 by Rod Reynolds
Unless otherwise noted Scripture taken from the New King James VersionTM
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.

*Reference No2: The Great Controversy, Page 438


.....merely, but of all worship, is found in the distinction between the Creator and His creatures. This great fact can never become obsolete, and must never be forgotten.”—J. N. Andrews, History of the Sabbath, chapter 27. It was to keep this truth ever before the minds of men, that God instituted the Sabbath in Eden; and so long as the fact that He is our Creator continues to be a reason why we should worship Him, so long the Sabbath will continue as its sign and memorial. Had the Sabbath been universally kept, man's thoughts and affections would have been led to the Creator as the object of reverence and worship, and there would never have been an idolater, an atheist, or an infidel. The keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty to the true God, “Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” It follows that the message which commands men to worship God and keep His commandments will especially call upon them to keep the fourth commandment.
In contrast to those who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus, the third angel points to another class, against whose errors a solemn and fearful warning is uttered: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” Revelation 14:9, 10. A correct interpretation of the symbols employed is necessary to an understanding of this message. What is represented by the beast, the image, the mark?
The line of prophecy in which these symbols are found begins with Revelation 12, with the dragon that sought to destroy Christ at His birth. The dragon is said to be Satan (Revelation 12:9); he it was that moved upon Herod to put the Saviour to death. But the chief agent of Satan in making war upon Christ and His people during the first centuries of the Christian Era was the Roman Empire, in which paganism was the prevailing religion. Thus while the dragon, primarily, represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome.
 

Earn a UNICAF Scholarship for a Recognised Unicaf University Degree!
Available for Applicants in Rwanda: Click Here



Approved on March 11th, 2017 by
AUSC President's Office.

 

 

Subscribe to our website

Contact us

Meet AUSC President at +250736196204

Our Team Members